So I've been thinking on how missiles could be overhauled so here's what I've been thinking:

Missile racks:
Places that store missiles, range from 2m to 12m long, would come in both solid (for performance purposes) and open variants. Note that these cannot be placed on turrets or spinblocks. When destroyed they explode if the missile they contain has a EMP, Frag or HE warhead, either of the HE heads or the EMP head. Zero AC and rather low health on both all variants

Missile customizer:
One of biggest ideas I've had:
Missiles would now built by a missile customizer, maxium length of wich is twelve blocks (excluding the controller). At 400m diameter missile "parts" would be 1m long if using a dual piece customizer and 2m longs if using a single piece customizer. Single piece versions of the warheads would be more powerful, fuel tanks would contain more fuel, engines would provide more thurst etc. Note that that missile frontal cones only come in "small" variations
-Missile warheads: Missiles would have Explosive, Solid, Fragmentation and EMP warheads. Fragmentation warheads would only be able to launch fragments in a cirulars pattern in parrel to the missile, maxium angle for both forward and backward of the missile's direction would 45 degrees.
-Missile cones: The cones of the missile, a two piece item. The very frontal part of the missile cone is the detection part of the cone and determines the detection and guidance capabilities of the missile i.e. the IR detector cone would be adle to detect high temperature objects on a ship and home towards them. Second part of the missile is what determines how the missile behaves when it hits the enemy vehicle.¨
1:Solid AP head, allows the missile to deal kinectic damage and penetrate armor, 50% damage penalty to EMP warheads. Deals a medium amount of kinectic damage at a based AP of 6 (increased by amount of solid warheads, speed)
2:Thump Kinectic head, works much like the thumper head currently for missile, can deal significant amount of damage but makes all warheads on the missile 100% useless, damage purely based on speed
3:HEAT head, fires a HEAT jets capable of penetrating armor, makes warheads do 90% less damage with the exception of the solid one, which gets a 100% damage penalty. Not buffed by explosive warheads behind it (unlike APS Heat)
4:High speed AP head, gives a 1,5x modifier to missile speed, reduces Frag and HE damage by 50%, EMP damage by 75%. Low Kinectic damage base, base AP value of 10 (increased by solid warheads and speed of the missile)
5:HE head, deals a high amount of base HE damage. Reduces Frag and EMP damage by 75%, solid by 100%, increases HE warhead damage to 120% of normal, reduces health of the missile by 20%
6:High speed HE head, gives a 1,2x modifier to missile speed, reduces frag and EMP damage by 90%, solid by 100%, reduces HE damage by 25%. Reduces health of the missile by 25%
7:EMP head, Increases EMP damage by 20%, reduces HE and frag by 75%, solid by 100%
-Missile fuel tanks.
Fairly straightforward to be honest, fuel of the missile, fuel tanks also reduce the health of the missile by 10%
-Missile warheads (info)
1:Solid warhead: Kinectic damage and AP value boost, increases the health of the missile by 20%
2:Frag warhead: Like explained before, launches Fragments in circular pattern, deals a very small amount of explosive damage, reduces the health of the missile by 10%
3:HE warhead, deals a high amount of explosive damage, reduces the health of the missile by a whopping 20%
4:EMP warhead, deals EMP damage. No effects on the health of the missile
-Missile thurster.
Three different types of thrusters, each with their own functions. Note that these MUST be at the back of the missile and there can only be one per missile
1: Short range thruster, provides a high amount of thrust at a very high fuel cost, intended for short ranged missile
2:Balanced thruster, provides a medium amount of thrust at medium fuel cost
3:Long range thruster: Provides a low amount of thrust at a low fuel costs, intended for things like cruiser missiles or other long range missile.
A single piece of versions of the thrusters give more thrust at a higher fuel cost
-Missile fuses:
These dertermine when a missile will explode, note that they do nothing to solid warheads
1: Proximity fuse, explodes at a set distance from the enemy vehicles, maximum range is 7m
2:Post Penetration timed fuse, causes frag, emp or HE warheads to go off after a set amount of time post armor penetration
-Other missile pieces:
1: IR camera, for IR dectection cones, works much like the current missile IR camera, has a speed modifier of 0.8x
2:Fins, allows missile to turn, although not all that well, reduces speed of the missile by 5%, must be at the back of the missile to be the most effective
3:Turn thrusters, turns the missile very fast at the cost of fuel
4:Beam rider, same as the beam rider currently for missiles

Missile Launchers:
Missile launchers are still controlled by a missile control block. However, missile Launchers themselves are no a single block ranging from 2m to 12m longs, they also come in boxed, circular (only takes 200mm and below in diameter missiles), single exposed or multi exposed (only takes missile up to 400mm diameter in which case it holds two) variants. There's still missile connectors and IFF blocks but no staggered fire block, as that is a slider on the missile block itself. Missile Launchers CANNOT reload without missile racks. Note: Circulars only go up to 4m long and Multi exposed only go to 8m long. Also note that a 800 diameter missile is too big to fit a maxsized customizer missile on any of these

My gripe with this is that missiles are your basic, go to weapon. It's weak, it's counterable by pretty much anything except shields, they are low in health, low in range, low in DPS.

It doesn't need a nerf like you are proposing (which is what it essentially is; the complexity increases dramatically).

If such a system would be created, it would have to be alongside the current missiles, and represent an advanced missile system, with configurable gauge. Because when I started playing FtD, pretty much the only weapon I could really succesfully build was a missile launcher.

(2017-03-20 09:49 AM)Kohl Armata Wrote: So I've been thinking on how missiles could be overhauled so here's what I've been thinking:

Missile racks:
Places that store missiles, range from 2m to 12m long, would come in both solid (for performance purposes) and open variants. Note that these cannot be placed on turrets or spinblocks. When destroyed they explode if the missile they contain has a EMP, Frag or HE warhead, either of the HE heads or the EMP head. Zero AC and rather low health on both all variantsI am fairly certain that causing divide-by-zero errors whenever hit will not help this system's popularity . That said, I
think that making this system explosive *and* one of the most delicate blocks in the entire game will cause considerable frustration--a more moderate health seems justified. I do like the idea of making missiles require extra within-hull support blocks, however; it allows making them bulkier without preventing relatively clean-looking launchers.

Missile customizer:
One of biggest ideas I've had:
Missiles would now built by a missile customizer, maxium length of wich is twelve blocks (excluding the controller). At 400m diameter missile "parts" would be 1m long if using a dual piece customizer and 2m longs if using a single piece customizer. Single piece versions of the warheads would be more powerful, fuel tanks would contain more fuel, engines would provide more thurst etc. Note that that missile frontal cones only come in "small" variations

I am not sold on different lengths depending on the customizer; it adds a lot of complexity to both understanding the mechanics and the code itself, and FTD already has a convention of using module count rather than module size. (Not to mention that if a single long module were superior to two short modules, changing the missile would require constant shuffling between single and dual-piece customizers depending on where they were needed.

-Missile warheads: Missiles would have Explosive, Solid, Fragmentation and EMP warheads. Fragmentation warheads would only be able to launch fragments in a cirulars pattern in parrel to the missile, maxium angle for both forward and backward of the missile's direction would 45 degrees.

That rule is going to make frag damage extremely erratic. Scarlet has proposed mechanics for APS frag correlating the total damage to the cone angle; I would suggest adopting it (or whatever winds up implemented there) for consistency.

-Missile cones: The cones of the missile, a two piece item. The very frontal part of the missile cone is the detection part of the cone and determines the detection and guidance capabilities of the missile i.e. the IR detector cone would be adle to detect high temperature objects on a ship and home towards them. Second part of the missile is what determines how the missile behaves when it hits the enemy vehicle.¨
1:Solid AP head, allows the missile to deal kinectic damage and penetrate armor, 50% damage penalty to EMP warheads. Deals a medium amount of kinectic damage at a based AP of 6 (increased by amount of solid warheads, speed)
2:Thump Kinectic head, works much like the thumper head currently for missile, can deal significant amount of damage but makes all warheads on the missile 100% useless, damage purely based on speed
3:HEAT head, fires a HEAT jets capable of penetrating armor, makes warheads do 90% less damage with the exception of the solid one, which gets a 100% damage penalty. Not buffed by explosive warheads behind it (unlike APS Heat)
4:High speed AP head, gives a 1,5x modifier to missile speed, reduces Frag and HE damage by 50%, EMP damage by 75%. Low Kinectic damage base, base AP value of 10 (increased by solid warheads and speed of the missile)
5:HE head, deals a high amount of base HE damage. Reduces Frag and EMP damage by 75%, solid by 100%, increases HE warhead damage to 120% of normal, reduces health of the missile by 20%
6:High speed HE head, gives a 1,2x modifier to missile speed, reduces frag and EMP damage by 90%, solid by 100%, reduces HE damage by 25%. Reduces health of the missile by 25%
7:EMP head, Increases EMP damage by 20%, reduces HE and frag by 75%, solid by 100%

That is a ton of complexity, almost all of which is redundant with warhead choice and the balance between the number of warhead and propulsion modules. I think I would favor just doing away with them (except perhaps thump and HEAT).

-Missile fuel tanks.
Fairly straightforward to be honest, fuel of the missile, fuel tanks also reduce the health of the missile by 10%
-Missile warheads (info)
1:Solid warhead: Kinectic damage and AP value boost, increases the health of the missile by 20%
2:Frag warhead: Like explained before, launches Fragments in circular pattern, deals a very small amount of explosive damage, reduces the health of the missile by 10%
3:HE warhead, deals a high amount of explosive damage, reduces the health of the missile by a whopping 20%
4:EMP warhead, deals EMP damage. No effects on the health of the missile
-Missile thurster.
Three different types of thrusters, each with their own functions. Note that these MUST be at the back of the missile and there can only be one per missile
1: Short range thruster, provides a high amount of thrust at a very high fuel cost, intended for short ranged missile
2:Balanced thruster, provides a medium amount of thrust at medium fuel cost
3:Long range thruster: Provides a low amount of thrust at a low fuel costs, intended for things like cruiser missiles or other long range missile.
A single piece of versions of the thrusters give more thrust at a higher fuel costWhat is the advantage of this over one thruster part with configurable thrust? Aside from limiting component proliferation, the discrete nature of your proposal means odd interactions between length of missiles and achievable speeds
-Missile fuses:
These dertermine when a missile will explode, note that they do nothing to solid warheads
1: Proximity fuse, explodes at a set distance from the enemy vehicles, maximum range is 7m Proximity is extremely computationally intensive if implemented intuitively--APS proximity does not do at all what most people expect it to, and missile proximity is a known source of extreme lag. Given a fresh start, it is probably best to never even introduce it.
2:Post Penetration timed fuse, causes frag, emp or HE warheads to go off after a set amount of time post armor penetration
-Other missile pieces:
1: IR camera, for IR dectection cones, works much like the current missile IR camera, has a speed modifier of 0.8x
[color=#0000CD]Why the huge speed penalty?
2:Fins, allows missile to turn, although not all that well, reduces speed of the missile by 5%, must be at the back of the missile to be the most effective
3:Turn thrusters, turns the missile very fast at the cost of fuel
4:Beam rider, same as the beam rider currently for missiles

Missile Launchers:
Missile launchers are still controlled by a missile control block. However, missile Launchers themselves are no a single block ranging from 2m to 12m longs, they also come in boxed, circular (only takes 200mm and below in diameter missiles), single exposed or multi exposed (only takes missile up to 400mm diameter in which case it holds two) variants. There's still missile connectors and IFF blocks but no staggered fire block, as that is a slider on the missile block itself. Missile Launchers CANNOT reload without missile racks. Note: Circulars only go up to 4m long and Multi exposed only go to 8m long. Also note that a 800 diameter missile is too big to fit a maxsized customizer missile on any of theseSo this will require 43 new blocks (number of launcher types times number of lengths)? That seems rather high--all the different APS autoloader lengths are already a pain, and I think only justified by how hard managing them as multi-block systems would be. The present missile system seems the right way to go, with extendable single-block gantries. (This will also enable larger 800mm missiles, which I am sure people will want sooner or later.)

(2017-03-23 08:38 PM)Eagle Wrote: My gripe with this is that missiles are your basic, go to weapon. It's weak, it's counterable by pretty much anything except shields, they are low in health, low in range, low in DPS.

It doesn't need a nerf like you are proposing (which is what it essentially is; the complexity increases dramatically).

If such a system would be created, it would have to be alongside the current missiles, and represent an advanced missile system, with configurable gauge. Because when I started playing FtD, pretty much the only weapon I could really succesfully build was a missile launcher.

And how exactly is this a nerf? Intention is that a 800mm 12m long missile will do more than damage than a CRAM, but will be, way, way more costly in ammo usage

Edit: And I see added complexity as a plus, especially since consider missile TOO simple right now, and their weakness makes them exactly that, weak and useless

(2017-03-23 09:48 PM)Blothorn Wrote: Overall, I much like the proposal. Some specific feedback inline.

(2017-03-20 09:49 AM)Kohl Armata Wrote: I am fairly certain that causing divide-by-zero errors whenever hit will not help this system's popularity . That said, I
think that making this system explosive *and* one of the most delicate blocks in the entire game will cause considerable frustration--a more moderate health seems justified. I do like the idea of making missiles require extra within-hull support blocks, however; it allows making them bulkier without preventing relatively clean-looking launchers.

I am not sold on different lengths depending on the customizer; it adds a lot of complexity to both understanding the mechanics and the code itself, and FTD already has a convention of using module count rather than module size. (Not to mention that if a single long module were superior to two short modules, changing the missile would require constant shuffling between single and dual-piece customizers depending on where they were needed.

That rule is going to make frag damage extremely erratic. Scarlet has proposed mechanics for APS frag correlating the total damage to the cone angle; I would suggest adopting it (or whatever winds up implemented there) for consistency.

That is a ton of complexity, almost all of which is redundant with warhead choice and the balance between the number of warhead and propulsion modules. I think I would favor just doing away with them (except perhaps thump and HEAT).

What is the advantage of this over one thruster part with configurable thrust? Aside from limiting component proliferation, the discrete nature of your proposal means odd interactions between length of missiles and achievable speeds

Proximity is extremely computationally intensive if implemented intuitively--APS proximity does not do at all what most people expect it to, and missile proximity is a known source of extreme lag. Given a fresh start, it is probably best to never even introduce it.

Why the huge speed penalty?

So this will require 43 new blocks (number of launcher types times number of lengths)? That seems rather high--all the different APS autoloader lengths are already a pain, and I think only justified by how hard managing them as multi-block systems would be. The present missile system seems the right way to go, with extendable single-block gantries. (This will also enable larger 800mm missiles, which I am sure people will want sooner or later.)

I'm just going to answer each one individually.

1. You do make a good point on them maybe possibly being a BIT too fragile, but I still would want to be fragile

2: I, personally want this to be a trade off, you can either have raw power or flexibility

3: By default, frags would launch at 90 degree angle relative to the direction the missile is heading towards, intention for this is that I want ACTUAL fragmentation heads instead of the silly, shotgun warheads we have currently

4: I'm just going to point that these are intended to be the actually thing that determines what type of missile you're making, so you can either have: All of them, or none at all because of the the proposed two-piece concept, which means that if you DON'T have a head on your missile, it will simply drop like a rock, because the system would read the missile as not having any guidance or flight capability. AND that is intentional.

5. Configurable thruster is much harder to balance

6. I am aware, but I really don't want to get rid of it either

7. The speed penalty is there to attempt to balance the fact that now the missile just flat out ignores flare (if the IR camera is fixed that is...) and not to mention, missile with this proposed overhaul would travel at 500m/s fairly easily

8. Bigger 800mm missile will not be possible, since due to parts system, each dual-piece part will be 2m long, which means that maxium length for a missile customize that makes 800mm missiles is 6 blocks (less if single piece customizers are used), so in order to have a 12 block 800mm missile customizer, you'd need 24m launcher AND rack if you want to reload the missile. Yes I know there's a lot of blocks, but these are all intended to be SINGLE blocks, the launchers themselves, thus reducing the block counts on missile based craft, hence helping performance

I'd also like to add, that missile with this overhaul would vary drastically in ammo cost, with each 12m long 800mm missile costing a whopping 2000 ammo to make, while a 3m (twelve block cutomizer, minus controller) 100mm missile would only cost 50 ammo per missile